HISTORY
REINTERPRETED"If they can get you asking
the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about the answers."Thomas
Pynchon

by William B. Fox
last updated
Friday 24 Feb 2006

Finding a new pespective.
Merriwether Lewis' First Glimpse of the Rockies from First
Across the Continent by Noah Brooks

Overview

In "Critical Issues," we briefly looked
at some important trends that are wrecking America today. I explained
that I am not describing these issues simply to scare people or
add to their worries, but rather to help them accurately diagnose
the true nature of America's problems.

After making an accurate diagnosis, our task is then
to identify strategies for ourselves and the people we can influence
or join forces with in our local communities. Hopefully we can learn
how to lead more sane, healthy, prosperous, productive, and effective
lives while similtaneously increasing our defenses against misfortune.

In "Resolving Opposing Ideologies," we
looked at ways to ideologically untangle confusion over the true
nature of policy options.

Our Next Step:
Now we have to deal with another major stumbling block. We have
to examine how we interpret the past. This is very important, because
people usually make policy recommendations for the future based
upon the use of some kind of interpretation of past events. Dr.
Ralph Raico, in his Mises Institute lecture, emphasized this point
when he alluded to Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth
in George Orville's novel 1984. Smith
scanned old newspapers for content that did not seem to fit Big
Brother's current policies and threw them down the memory hole.
"He who controls the past controls the present, and he who
controls the present controls the future."

In this section I want to provide an overview regarding the way
in which each perspective described in my "Resolving Opposing
Ideologies" section helps us to start asking some of the right
historical questions. These perspectives are summarized again as
follows:

a) Environmental top down (also
known as authoritarian modern liberalism, liberal fascism, and "neo-Jacobinism,"
all of which describes what America has become today)
b) Environmental bottom up (also known as contemporary
anarcho-libertarianism, this is a "sanitized," non-racialist,
non-ethnic version of the American Old Right)
c) Genetic top down (also known as authoritarian
racial nationalism, this includes German national socialism and
Zionism.)
d) Genetic bottom up (I call this libertarian racial
nationalism. This is also known as 19th century classical liberalism,
the American Old Right, and Paleo-Conservatism)
e) Mutualism vs. Parasitism (Productive practices
vs. criminality. The latter include political corruption, organized
crime, and subversion).

Environmental

Genetic

Top Down

Environmental
Top Down
(Authortarian
Modern Liberalism)
The current official view

Genetic
Top Down
(Authoritarian
Racial Nationalism)
What America supports in Israel

Environmental
Bottom Up
Anarcho-Libertarianism
Highly Selective Old Right

Genetic
Bottom Up
(Libertarian Racial Nationalism)
The real American Old Right
and English Yeoman Tradition

Examining the history of American productivity growth
and industrial development

Once upon a time America was admired for being the most productive
and innovative country on earth. I think that there is ample evidence
that America's leaders today have lost sight of the key success
factors that once built America. They certainly are not making a
particularly vigorous effort to name names and publicly defend these
fundamental elements. Nor are they making a particularly honest
effort to educate the public about ways that America has jumped
the track and can get back on track.

I believe that there are some well known standards that have been
known for centuries that we can apply to understand how America
has jumped the track, and what must be done to create a viable,
sustainable, competitive society.

For starters, the process of creating real wealth has both quantitative
as well as qualitative dimensions that we need to first examine
in greater detail.

In the quantitative category, I like the fairly simple conceptual
formula used by a business simulation consulting firm called Advanced
Competitive Strategies based in Portland, Oregon. It is as follows:
Companies gain a competitive advantage when they produce goods that
maintain a superior ratio of quality compared to price. To stay
in business over the long run in a competitive, free market environment,
they must continually strive to increase the relative quality and
usefulness of their products, while they must simultaneously strive
to reduce the relative prices to consumers. At the same time in
order to survive over the long run, they must make an adequate profit
in order to meet their living needs, sustain operations, incentivize
risk-taking, provide security, and continually reinvest in upscaling
technology and operational capabilities.

While this is a very broad and simple formula, I cannot think of
any circumstances in any type of society where it does not apply
over the long run. It almost seems like an iron law of economics.
It seems like every society that comes up with some kind of new
political or economic ideology or policy formula that tries to mask
or divert the focus away from this underlying reality ultimately
pays a terrible price. Societies not only lose competitiveness,
but by running red ink, they also hurt certain people and gradually
tear down the overall wealth base of the society.

Most of your business and accounting textbooks discuss quantitative
analytical measures that judge success by focusing on only part
of this overall formula. These typical measures include such measures
net profit after tax, return on equity, internal rate of return,
and net present value.

These are all no doubt very important measures, but they fail to
take into account broader issues. I summarize all of this in my
discussion of Automation Economics 101 in my Chapter "Robo
Political Economy" in my online ebook "I, Robot Entrepreneur,"
(also available as a donation ebook with America First Books). I
begin by describing how the famous libertarian economics writer
Henry Hazlitt reacted to claims made by Franklin D. Roosevelt's
wife Eleanor and a number of his economics advisors that America
had to hold back installing new automation equipment in certain
industries in order to protect American jobs:

In Economics
in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt pointed out that
while it is true that machines obsolete certain jobs, it is also
true that they simultaneously create new jobs elsewhere. They create
new jobs designing and tending to the new machinery. They create
new jobs distributing the additional goods that are produced. The
lower cost of the goods leaves more money in the pocket of the consumer,
whose spending creates new jobs elsewhere. The increased profits
of the manufacturer creates a greater pool of savings for him to
reinvest, either in new plant and equipment, or as general investment
capital. The greater number of goods produced at lower costs add
more to the physical infrastructure of the society, which in turn
helps it to create even better machinery to create even more higher
quality goods at even lower costs.

If simply creating human jobs is the only goal,
it is true that you can always create or protect more jobs by eliminating
machinery and returning society to a more primitive level. The problem
is that the jobs are of lower productive quality. The society that
has too many of them may eventually be overpowered by more efficient
outside predators.

Hazlitt points out that we can create tens of thousands
of jobs overnight if we pass a law that requires that all goods
carried between Chicago to New York have to be done in Neolithic
style --on people's backs. This kind of "make work" would
seem ludicrous to most Americans today. Looking back at the 19th
century, we can see how it would have been ludicrous to have thwarted
automobile-related automation to protect wagon teamster jobs. People
fifty years from now will probably think the same thing about any
"make work" or "keep job" decisions today to
not install robots.

Hazlitt points out how certain emerging industries
grew in jobs as they added automation. For example, the auto industry
grew from 140,000 people in 1910 to 941,000 people in 1973. Aviation
and aircraft parts went from zero in 1900 to 514,000 by 1973. (Hazlitt,
page 58). My guess is that the robot industry will also be adding
tons of jobs in the decades ahead.

In many ways the whole human "job" concept
currently used as an intellectual construct is grossly inadequate.
We need to ask deeper questions about the tasks accomplished and
the overall "work smarter" quality of the jobs that we
are creating. This even became clear to savvy economists well before
the 20th century. According to Hazlitt (page 51) "The power
capacity already being exerted by the steam engines of the world
in existence and working in the year 1887 has been estimated by
the Bureau of Statistics in Berlin as equivalent to that of the
200,000,000 horses, representing approximately 1,000,000,000 men;
or at least three times the working population of the earth..."

So in other words the machinery of the Industrial
Revolution up until 1887 had added job-equivalents of three times
the earth's working population compared to an earlier period of,
say, the 17th century, and yet in 1887 we continued to see something
close to full human employment in both the United States and England.
This was despite the fact that the populations of both England and
the US more than doubled in the mid-19th century compared to the
18th century.

If the impact of machinery is to eliminate human
jobs, there should have been increasingly massive unemployment towards
the latter part of the 19th century coinciding with the progression
of the Industrial Revolution. Instead, the addition of automation
was part of an entrepreneurial environment that continuously added
more job-equivalents compared to an earlier era for both machines
and for humans.

Perhaps the real job we should focus on in society
involves a process of continually innovating and creating better
and more effective machines that get more productive work accomplished
per worker, as opposed to trying to cocoon ourselves inside a repetitive
work routine for fixed wages. Until we build star ships that take
us to far galaxies, there will always be plenty of jobs that need
to be performed, and even then I would expect the human innovative
imagination to reach even further. According to some economic theorists,
human needs are insatiable, therefore there may be no limit to the
extent that each human worker can be empowered with robot production.

The achievements of workers and industrialists during
the 1800's are remarkable given the lack of resources we take for
granted today. It is very important for our social issues analysis
that we take a closer look at these societies.

America and Britain were the world industrial leaders
during the 19th century. They were both on a gold standard during
most of this period. Despite economic set-backs of the Napoleonic
Wars for Britain, and the Civil War and War of 1812 for the US,
there were long stretches in both countries where economic growth
rates averaged 5% a year, an amazing feat by late 20th century American
and British standards. In Great Britain money actually doubled in
value within a century. (I discuss this in more detail in Part One
and Part Two of my series of articles about gold.) Average living
standards more than doubled by the end of the century. There was
no significant government stimulus or intervention in the economies.
Except for times of war, there was no central bank or personal or
corporate income tax. Total government prior to the War Between
the States comprised less than 5% of GDP, compared to over 40% today.
The US government raised its revenues from tariffs and land sales.
Private industry was able to make massive and continual reinvestments
in itself.

These were relatively laissez faire economies with
stable monetary conditions that favored competent entrepreneurial
calculation. These societies promoted personal savings, a strong
work ethic, and a deep sense of personal honor. Most non-black Americans
in the early 1800's were of Northern European descent or anthropologically
of a Nordic background. The same was true of the elite that controlled
the levers of power in banking, media, and industry. Their sense
of shared ethnic history, racial pride, and traditions of innovation
and individual liberty provided a strong incentive to work honestly
and harmoneously with their neighbors without requiring top-down
governmental oversight.

Honesty aided rational long term entrepreneurial
calculation and teamwork. Private charities, family and community
ties, and concern by industrialists for their workers, later denounced
by Marxists as "paternalism," provided economic shock
absorbers. An emphasis on foresight, delayed gratification, and
individual responsibility and initiative helped workers adapt to
changing industrial conditions.

One important area where we can start asking the right historical
questions is to ask how the Industrial Revolution and capitalism
has been unfairly demonized by the left in America's schools and
media. I have already mentioned Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo's book How
Capitalism Saved America, which covers widely held
public misconceptions regarding the 19th century. In my robot paper,
I also discuss the insightful commentary of Dr. Ralph Raico:

In his lecture, "The
Industrial Revolution," Dr. Raico points out that a report
to the English Parliament in the early 1800's that helped give rise
to the "Dark Satanic Mills" and other "exploitation"
propaganda used by Marxists was extremely biased and was based on
selective anecdotal evidence. Apparently the Tory party, which had
slave-holders, was looking for ways to discredit their political
opponents, who consisted of budding industrialists. These industrialists
tended to be anti-slavery, so this was the Tory way of saying, "Who
are you to criticize us?"

Although serious abuses did in fact take place,
as is true in virtually any political and economic system, the Industrial
Revolution did a lot for people, particularly those who had lived
out in the British countryside. According to some studies, many
of these rural people previously had to spend 60% of their income
on food just to stay alive, and could rarely afford new clothes.
Dr. Raico pointed out that if you do not like the Industrial Revolution,
look at places which at that time never had one, such as Ireland
during the potato famine of the 1840's (or Calcutta India, for that
matter). The same potato blight that hit Ireland also impacted on
Scotland, Holland, and Northern Germany, but did not create anywhere
near the same economic catastrophe in large part because the people
in these other areas had industry to fall back on, whereas constant
civil conflict with absentee landholders for centuries in Ireland
had discouraged local investment.

From my many years as both as an active real estate broker and
active stock broker (I am now an inactive in these areas while working
full time as a writer), I have observed hundreds of businesses in
all kinds of industries in America. There are two problem areas
in particular today that jump out at me as being major problems
in our society.

The first area involves greed and dishonesty that has deeply infected
all strata of our society. The second area involves the complete
inability to make a broad social intepretation of such wealth-building
requirements as "providing security" and "reinvestment."

I define greed as deliberately pursuing ones own personal narrow
short term gain at the expense of the overall society, particularly
in ways that have a long term destructive impact for everyone. An
obvious example involving a small business is an entrepreneur who
is only concerned about creating a business that is "all hat
and no cattle" (as they say in Texas) for the primary purpose
of "pumping and dumping" the stock so that he can make
millions with his insider holdings, and who can care less whether
his company destroys the environment, or whether his company turns
out to not be "real" and has to lay off all its workers
--thereby dumping intangible career disruption costs on the workers
as well as unemployment benefits costs on the taxpayer. Similarly,
it can include unions who "pay themselves first" with
benefits increases before companies create competitive products,
and thereby squeeze out so much of the companies' retained earnings
that it can no longer adequately reinvest, innovate, or produce
quality, and falls by the wayside. Greed can also include forms
of "career greed" in government bureaucracy, such as the
politician who knows that the President has no Constitutional authority
to invade Iraq on phony WMD pretexts, but fails to take a public
stand for fearing he will lose an election. "Career greed"
can also include a military officer who knows that slaughtering
innocent civilians and engaging in torture may inevitably leak out
and do tremendous damage to America's reputation, but in the long
run he might be able to escape personal accountability for these
actions, whereas in the short run he knows he can gain career points
with his superiors by never questioning orders.

In regard to second area, please recollect the formula I stated
near the beginning at the article, namely: "At the same time
in order to survive and prosper over the long run, [businesses]
must make an adequate profit in order to meet their living needs,
sustain operations, incentivize risk-taking, provide security, and
continually reinvest in upscaling technology and operational capabilities."
The problem here is the inability of our government and business
leaders to interpret "provide security," and "reinvest
in upscaling technology and operational capabilities" on a
long term, broader social level. This includes the genetic viewpoints
discussed in my "Reconciling Ideological Perspective."
"Providing security" includes maintaining a certain level
of racial and cultural coherence required to minimize natural forms
of racial strife and predatory exploitation. "Reinvestment"
includes forms of reinvestment in ones own genetic interests. This
includes maintaining a meritocracy where bright white people can
afford to have more children rather than getting squeezed out of
jobs by affirmative action programs or living under a legal terrorism
threat by well funded alien groups such as the ADL and Southern
Poverty Law Center for openly espousing various forms of white survivalism.
"Reinvestment" also includes rebuilding America's domestic
manufacturing base. In his book In Praise of Hard Industries
Eamonn Fingleton explains how it is vital to maintain manufacturing
at about one third of GDP, as I discuss elsewhere.

Needless to say, our historical analysis of America in the last
one hundred years should help us better understand the accumulation
of both infectious greed and also social reinvestment disloyalty
and short-sightedness in our society.

There is no question in my mind that in the late 19th century, American
business leaders as a group took great personal pride in creating
real and well-paying jobs for American workers. They were also very
proud to help build up American industry.

On an anecdotal level, I recall once hearing on the radio when
J. Paul Getty died, that he wanted to be remembered as someone who
created jobs for thousands of Americans. Andrew Carnegie wanted
to be remembered well as an industrialist long after he was gone
and funded universities and created public libraries around the
country. Henry Ford, in My Life and Work,
takes pride in the fact that he unilaterally offered wages at twice
the industry average to his nonunion workers. He intended to continually
increase wages while steadily reducing the prices of his cars to
consumers. He was also totally dedicated towards helping America
lead the world in manufacturing prowess.

A person may question the purity and simplicity of the stated motives
of these particular individuals, but no one can question that these
kinds of values once set the tone for America. These leaders knew
that there is always a generation of young men who lack industry
knowledge, experience, and capital to go it on their own right away.
They knew that young men need good jobs to be able to marry and
get families started, and they were very proud that they could create
those jobs for the next generation.

To be sure, there were speculative excesses over railroads, telegraphs,
electrical companies, and many other new business areas in the 1800's.
There were certainly cases of malfeasance, corruption, and greed,
the Robber Baron era serving as a prime example. But nothing compares
in scale and magnitude to our bubble stock and real estate markets,
runaway corporate and government spending and debt, shriveling industrial
base, exploding unregulated derivatives that dwarf the size of the
American economy, and a host of indicators of totally reckless,
irresponsible, selfish, dishonest, and greedy business leadership
in America.

Too many contemporary American business leaders could care less
if the up and coming generation of young white men have decent jobs
so that they can get married and raise families; in fact, they could
care less if they are even white, straight, or for that matter even
American. All they care about is offloading their shares of stock
on gullible investors once they have been pumped up high enough,
and then retiring somewhere comfy and secure. Let the devil take
the hindmost.

There are quite a few books that help us understand better role
models of productive economic behavior.

If you have the time to peruse them, most of the books offered by
the Mises Institute at mises.org provide good basics on how a free
enterprise system should work. They also do an excellent
job of explaining why we ultimately have to get money out of the
hands of central bankers and politicians and return it to where
it was throughout most of the 1800's --in the hands of the people.

As mentioned in "Reconciling Opposing Ideologies," I
think that for analytical purposes, the best way to go is to use
a layer cake approach, where one first thoroughly does his homework
to understand how things should work under a reasonably principled
and chivalrous free enterprise and free market system advocated
by anarcho-libertarians and analyzed by Austrian economists. Then
add the next layer which involves the necessary economic
distortions required to protect genetic and other vital group and
national interests. Then on top of all of this, add the additional
unnecessary distortions --which are huge-- that protect
special privileges and criminals, to include central bankers and
quite a few of our politicians. Don't forget to factor insights
from Michael Collins Pipers' Final Judgment
and New Jerusalem, Dr. David Duke's My
Awakening and Jewish Supremacism,
and Wilmot Robertson's The Dispossessed Majority.
After doing all of this, you will be surprised how you have developed
an economic model that is probably fairly close to reality, and
far more accurate than 99% of the macro-economic models promoted
by highly paid Wall Street economists and university research departments.
And no, they did not teach me this approach at Harvard. (Nonetheless,
I am pleased that at least Dr. Stephen Walt, the former Dean of
the Kennedy School of Government, has made a good step in the right
direction in the report he co-authored with University of Chicago
professor titled " ".)

For the last two hundred years automation has been the key to economic
growth. The next phase is the mobile robotics revolution, which
is well underway. Robotics, incidentally, integrates so many disciplines
ranging from computer science to mechanical engineering that many
engineering schools require their students to iniate robot projects.
Many high schools are adopting a similar attitude to encourage enthusiasm
for math and science. Advanced technology is one area America cannot
abdicate involvement regardless of the competition or jobs going
to Asia. For starters, we cannot afford to wake up some day and
find out that foreigners have a million robots of human level intellignece,
that are in turn producing millions more robots, and we have nothing
to compare.

For savvy people, there will probably still be ways to make a living
in advanced technology areas, even if means functioning with within
the context of a boutique firm that falls between the cracks of
Asian competition. I created my online ebook I, Robot
Entrepreneur (the title is a takeoff on Asimov's story
"I, Robot;" this is also available as a donation book)
as one glimpse of this exciting new area.

I think that myriad business opportunities will spring up in this
area much as they did in support of the personal computer. Also,
whites as a group tend to be gifted in the realm of technological
innovation, so here is an area where they can deal from strength.

Last, but not least, robotics expertise can double to help an individual
or oppressed white community defend liberty in support of our second
Amendment (as well as ancient Indo-European) right to bear arms.
For example, if America suffers a serious breakdown in the future
and one needs to go to special lengths to protect ones family and
community from alien marauders, the same know-how that goes into
making robots can easily be transferred to creating multiple remote
camera-operated surveillance systems and other remotely operated
improvised items. I only advocate such things for strictly legal,
defensive purposes, of course.

In regard to general management practices involved in small business
development, I think that In Search of Excellence
remains a classic.

One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch
remains a classic for value investing.

A lot of rightist groups have explored ways to improve labor relations
with concepts coming from socialist labor organizers and syndicalists.
Often they come from an ideological perspective. I prefer to look
at real life examples of relations that have worked.

The lectures of Dr. Murray Rothbard on organized labor at mises.org
provide interesting background from a libertarian perspective on
unions. He discusses their track record when it comes to the real
wealth-building process. Dr. Rothbard taught at Columbia University,
and said that it was interesting to observe fellow academics at
Columbia who were originally extremely biased towards unions, but
after collecting economic statistics began to move in the other
direction. They concluded that over time, unions tend to throw sand
in the gears of change. In addition, Dr. Murray claimed they tend
to be a "war of the working class against the working class,"
where unions tend to push up wages on aveage about 6% within an
industry for those who are in unions, and cause a 3% decline in
wages for workers in the same industry who are nonunion. He also
noted that unions to thrive best where it is more difficult for
employers to resort to competing labor.

Before we become too critical of unions, I believe that we really
need to frame the discussion in terms of the iron law of economics.
It does not matter if you are with a union or with management, if
you are not producing products with a competitive ratio of increasing
quality relative to price, you will eventually fall by the wayside.
A big problem with certain unions is that they have become too focused
on a "pay yourself first" mentality that involves pushing
up benefits without first making greater gains in productivity.
This has been exacerbated by historical eras such as the Franklin
D. Roosevelt administration which we know today was filled with
Red sympathizers who encouraged American unions to focus on confrontation
tactics rather than shared productivity programs.

To the extent that unions can promote professional standards and
help increase productivity among their members, then they can more
than pay for themselves. I also believe personally that the threat
to unionize or to go on strike helps at the margin to keep certain
employers more honest, to include nonunion employers. In addition,
unions can help workers remain conscious of the need to protect
their interests, which can even include their genetic and cultural
interests. I have mentioned elsewhere the case of Dennis Kearney
who successfully organized to protect white interests in California
in the late 1800's.

An interesting book that describes a very successful approach that
involved worker participation with management to cooperate in setting
productivity goals as well as rewards is known as Multiple Management
is The Power of People by Charles P. McCormick.
In this book, he describes his basic business philosophy while the
Chairman of the Board and President of McCormick & Company from
1932 to 1955.

Effective Group Problem Solving by Dr.
William M. Fox describes proven methods for optimizing grass roots
input based upon decades of management research. These methods have
been used successfully for a variety of groups, to businesses, nonprofit
organizations, and government entities. The book also mentions programs
that share productivity gains with workers.

Criminal Studies

American history is very rich in genius-level criminal activity,
to include high level political crimes and war crimes.

In my libertarian racial nationalist section, I discuss Gary North's
free online ebook Conspiracy in Philadelphia. While North's
thesis may take quite a while for many Americans to chew over and
digest, the dictatorial excesses described in the King Lincoln archive
at www.lewrockwell.com and the accounts of Sherman's war crimes
against defenseless civilians in places like Georgia and South Carolina
in Sam Dickson's "Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln"
should be quite a bit easier to comprehend.

So far I have been talking about openly documented "in your
face" historical events. We have not even got to any Jewish
conspiracies yet, such as those described in The Creature
from Jekyll Island.

In my opinion, along with central bank story behind The
Creature from Jekyll Island, the greatest crime story
of the 20th century in America is told by Michael Collins Piper
in Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination
Conspiracy. Here we see how Israel, the Mossad, organized
crime, and part of the CIA very likely came together to blow away
the President of the United States in broad daylight. The implications
are mind-numbing, especially when one considers how the conspirators
have never been publicly tried, and major U.S. government officials
as well as major national media masters have sustained a cover up
for all these years.

If that is not enough to convince you, I recommend The
High Priests of War by Michael Collins Piper. Here
the "usual suspects" have dragged America into an unprovoked
war of aggression over bogus WMD claims on behalf of Israel that
ultimately had little or nothing to do with America's significant
interests or viable strategic alternatives. This book has been fully
reinforced by the recent Harvard study.

When we add in the unspeakably underhanded and evil genetic destruction
visited upon hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Marines
as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab civilians from
aerosolized depleted uranium munitions, we talking about some extremely
serious criminal activity that will haunt America's reputation for
generations. (I link to DU web sites in my Critical Issues section).

In terms of historical analysis, our criminal studies should complement
our study of the erosion of popular soverignty in American history
from the libertarian racial nationalist viewpoint that I mentioned
earlier.

Perhaps we can make an analogy using the example of a hypothetical
wounded soldier in an unsanitary Civil War field hospital who suffers
from a couple of gangraneous limbs. The presence of maggots and
other alien infestations on his body would tend to be proportional
to the amount of dead flesh, blood poisoning, and other diseases
that he suffers from.

Similarly, the degree of criminal infestation in America today
is directly proportional to the continual destruction of genuine
popular soverignty that I described in my libertarian racial nationalist
section. So as we follow American historical developments, we should
notice that as one area shows a quantum decrease, the other area
shows a quantum rise.

Indeed, my own personal interpretation of American history shows
this kind of interactive, confirmatory relationship. It also suggests
that effectively cleaning up America will involve ultimately involve
something far more radical than simply adding more policemen to
certain street corners.

The results of our criminal studies might serve as one more spur
for us to work ever harder to overhaul and rebuild America on a
racial, ethnic, cultural, and political level from the grassroots.
It should also help confirm our awareness of trends that suggest
we need to take greater steps to prepare for extremely hard economic
and political times ahead.